Talk:More Irish than the Irish themselves

Modern usage

User:Sony-youth has removed the discussion of modern usage. I think it's relevant, has been a part of the article for a while now, and a number of editors have contributed to that section. I think modern usage is very relevant. I'm putting it back in. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kathryn. Can you cite a source to show that this "modern usage" is in common practice? The rest of the paragraph in question is also speculative (from "One of the reasons .." onwards) and is similarly unsupported. I'm suggesting that the section should be removed until such point as the claim that this is the "modern usage" of the term is substantiated. Sony-youth 11:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. I hear and read it rather frequently in conversations, in person and online, but really can't recall if it's been published anywhere that meets Wiki standards. Let me think on it and I'll see if I can turn up anything suitable. Someone else wrote the "emulation of American culture" bit. I added the part about differences between the cultures, as that's the reason I've always seen given. Even if we wind up being unable to fully source all of the modern usage section to Wiki standards, I do think it's important to leave in *something* about the contemporary usage, especially in relation to cultural appropriation. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from but don't think what the section describes is a modern usage - meaning that the "original usage" is archaic. The phrase is definitely still in use (and, I wholeheartedly agree that the article needs a section that says so), but rather than a new/modern usage, I think its the same phrase applied to ever more groups of people (not exclusively Irish-Americans) just as the phrase was used in the past.

I'll try to dig some stuff up too. Meet you back here for a rewrite? Sony-youth 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. As long as there's some addressing of the concerns I cited above, I'm fine with a rewrite. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of final section

Original version:

The phrase is also used in a mildly derogatory sense by the Irish living in Ireland to describe Irish-Americans or residents of other nations who have some degree of Irish heritage, who exhibit their Irish nationalism, especially on visits to the "old country". Such people are also sometimes known as "Plastic Paddies" by residents of Ireland. One of the reasons given for this is the belief that, even if these visitors are of exclusively Irish lineage, their claims are pointless because, if anything, Ireland, like the United Kingdom and most English-speaking nations, has emulated US culture and behaviour for decades. Another reason given is that Irish culture does have significant differences from Irish-American culture, and that knowing one culture doesn't mean someone knows, or is a part of, both cultures. Some feel that it is cultural appropriation for those who are not part of Irish culture to claim they are "Irish".

Proposed rewrite:

The phrase is still commonly used, both colloquially and in the media, in reference to immigration and assimilation in Ireland (see for example in The Irish Times[1], Sen. Jim Walsh [2], Dr. Liam Twomey TD[3] or Irish Emigrant[4]) or in conversation discussing the relationship between the cultural heritage of the Irish diaspora and the Irish in Ireland (for example [5]). While still echoing its original meaning, contemporary usage of the phrase usually takes a more open interpretation of assimilation or, in the case of the diaspora, the maintenance of Irish heritage. Debates of the Oireachtas demonstrate the age and range of contemporary applications of the phrase[6]. Either when discussing the diaspora:

"I do not think this country will afford sufficient allurements to the citizens of other States ... The children of Irish parents born abroad are sometimes more Irish than the Irish themselves, and they would come with added experience and knowledge to our country ..." Sen. Patrick Kenny, 1924[7]

Or, more light-heartedly, on assimilation:

"... [As] in olden times the attractiveness of Irish life made the Norman invaders ... "Hiberniores Hibernicis ipsis," "more Irish than the Irish themselves," so the charms of Galway, experienced through 25 happy years, have made a woman, born in one of the severed counties, feel entitled to describe herself as "Galviensior Galviensibus ipsis"-"more Galwegian than the Galwegians themselves"" Helena Concannon TD, 1937[8]

--sony-youth 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good rewrite, though I would also propose at least a brief mention that the phrase is sometimes used in a more negative sense, concerning cultural appropriation. Perhaps something like:

"Occasionally the phrase is also used in a pejorative sense, for those of the diaspora who mistakenly believe they know more about Irish culture than do the Irish themselves, or who display pride in their Irish heritage in what some see as an ostentatious or tasteless manner (See also Plastic Paddy)."

I know I've seen message-board posts that use it in this manner, but as it's been a few years I have no idea if I can find them.

--Kathryn NicDhàna 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a few days to think this over and I still think that emphasizing the use of the phrase in a pejorative context is a misrepresentation. Of course all phrases can be used sarcastically, but that is quiet different to saying the phrase itself should be understood as pejorative - or even having a interpretation that should naturally be understood to be pejorative.

In your suggestion, I especially cannot agree with the description of people "who mistakenly believe they know more about Irish culture than do the Irish themselves" as it is sounds extremely POV and "in what some see" seems to be weasel words.

I did a Google search for "more irish than the irish themselves" and "Irish-American." These are the most pejorative results:

• Discussion of experiences of Irish-Americans not accepting Irish-Irish as "Irish"
• Difficulties facing Irish emigrants returning home
• Mentions a mainly Irish-born religious order (Society of Mary) adopting an overtly Irish aesthetic in New Zealand in order to influence their target community in the 19th century
• Discussion of the different relationship between Irish and Irish-Americans towards the Pope/Catholicism

Is this what you mean? Honestly, at worst, these sound like sarcasm and cannot be justification to say that the phrase is pejorative.

--sony-youth 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your stance on this. I do agree that "sarcastic use" is more accurate than "pejorative". What about some indication that it is sometimes used sarcastically? I'm sorry I can't be of more help with sourcing this, as I admit most of the use I've seen of it in a sarcastic manner has not been in sources that meet an encyclopedic standard (mostly from conversations with friends in person and folks online). I am awaiting the arrival of some slang dictionaries I hope might help. But perhaps the usage of it as sarcasm is too fringe and/or new to merit mention. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sony, I've incorporated the above changes. How about doing more sourcing on the earlier bits, too? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote, The phrase is still commonly used however, both colloquially and in the media Unquote. Is the phrase still commonly used? Maybe it is used by the media, but it's not in the common language. Any Irish Editors out there? 86.42.132.84 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Irish editor. Yeah, its a fairly common phrase - no really fixed meaning though, but as a reference to the original medieval usage (I'd argue). Certainly it would be commonly understood and not sound out of place in a conversation.

Also, Kathryn. Thanks for the edit. Sorry, I didn't get a chance to reply until now. --sony-youth 10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See also

This article could use some internal links. Bearian 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Paddy

I removed this link as it's just silly to compare the descendants of medieval Norman settlers who spoke Irish, intermarried with the Irish and thus became Irish with people who are just letting on to be Irish. If a Brit or Yank moves to Ireland and gets into all of the above they, too, become Irish and by no means "Plastic Paddys". 93.107.7.115 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasoning was that a Plastic Paddy is ignorant of Irish realities, and simply assumes a cloak of bogus/trivial "Irish-osity" based on a tenuous link to Ireland herself; all of which is the inverse of "More Irish than the Irish themselves". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"About"

What is an "about" section? You would assume the implication of an encyclopedia article is that the entire thing is 'about' the topic indicated in the title. Instead, we had an "about" section which was in fact about Norman Ireland and Old English (Ireland), which of course have their own pages.

I am unsure we need a standalone article about this phrase. What we have here is a colloquial phrase describing the phenomenon of Gaelicization. So I see no reason not to merge the article into the equally meagre Gaelicization page, in the hope of building something that might approach encyclopedic content.

Perhaps it will then not be necessary any longer to go off on tangents about the medieval history of Ireland to produce the illusion of content.

In addition, we had RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) restoring the objectively false claim that this is a "medieval" phrase. While the article is in fact perfectly aware that the phrase originates in 18th-century Irish nationalism. Please do not do this. Deliberate falsification or degradation of article content falls under disruptive editing. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on More Irish than the Irish themselves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427052043/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0178/S.0178.200412010006.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0178/S.0178.200412010006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607065150/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0002/S.0002.192401150005.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0002/S.0002.192401150005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607065216/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0068/D.0068.193706090011.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0068/D.0068.193706090011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"More Irish" than the Irish?

It is entirely incorrect and ahistorical to say that Old English communities became "Gaelicized" by the late Middle Ages. "Gaelicized" implies they had Gaelic names (they did not -their names were English), spoke the Gaelic language (again no -they spoke English) and adopted the Gaelic legal/political system (they did not). What actually happened was, a significant number of the Old English retained their Catholicism post-Reformation, at a time when most of the rest of Ireland was undergoing a process of Anglicization, which would only accelerate in the following centuries. Rather than the Old English becoming "more Irish than the Irish", it was the Gaels who became "Old English", as the two groups merged to form a common "Irish Catholic" ethnicity (which was linguistically and politically English -not Gaelic - but religiously Catholic).

The claim that the Old English became "more Irish than the Irish" is nothing but an example of a pre-internet meme that's still quite popular among historically uninformed individuals. But it's complicated by the historical record[9].

There was indeed intermarriage between the Old English and Irish in the 15th Century -even in the "obedient shires" around the Pale -but these unions almost always resulted in the Anglicization of the Irish spouse. There were notable exceptions but they were atypical: a branch of the Burke family, for example, settled out west in Galway and was thoroughly Gaelicized by the late Middle Ages.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Many people in past centuries apparently thought differently. Are you going to dig up their remains from graveyards and try to convert them to your point of view? AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)